xlr vs rca

Maybe I missed it but I don't see where it says anything about power supply leakage. What do you mean by that?

The insidious kind is when a power supply leakage affects ground on a device which adds modulated noise on your cabling as a function of power demands. The way to reduce this is to go balanced (so that the ground loop is induced equally in both positive and negative signals).

In order to affect a ground loop whatever is doing it has to change the potential of the ground. How does a power supply do that?

I think I'll bow out of this discussion. I'm told that there is no way the signals aren't separate when clearly they interact in the diff amps and then some vague references to leakage. It is really all pointless. Here's the bottom line. Those of you in the balanced camp can go on and on about all of the reasons why balanced "should" sound better than SE. You are correct; it should. There is a laundry list of reasons why CDs should sound better than vinyl. The simple truth is it does not. My ears and those of many others say that the best we've ever heard consists of SET amps coupled to high efficiency horns. I don't care what the textbooks say. I don't care how it measures. All I care about is how it sounds. Unfortunately there is no way to make that comparison via the internet.

In order to affect a ground loop whatever is doing it has to change the potential of the ground. How does a power supply do that?

Through parasitic leakage through capacitors and through transformers.

FWIW: There are plenty of examples where XLR has its share of noise and hum problems (poor design choices) and Whitlock covers these issues as well. So RCA can be better than XLR and vice versa depending on the setup and specific equipment. It is only properly implemented XLR that should have an edge over RCA.

I don't care what the textbooks say. I don't care how it measures. All I care about is how it sounds. Unfortunately there is no way to make that comparison via the internet.

Ok. Then it will be impossible to convince you. Perhaps the links will be useful to the original poster.

If your amp and preamp is true balanced then go balanced as much as possible. If it is not then I think it is a waste of time and money.

Herman brings up a good point. Traditional measurements illustrate how machines hear, not how humans hear. I too was convinced by all the reading I did that a balanced set-up would have advantages over single ended, and it may have, but I could not really hear a difference, especially with the critical factor I was benchmarking against which was reduced noise floor.

Traditional measurements illustrate how machines hear, not how humans hear.

Yes this is a good point. We may be discussing from incompatible and quite different perspectives/objectives. My perspecitive is audio reproduction with high accuracy. Most people may only be concerned themselves with what sounds subjectively nicer to them.

For example, it has been demonstrated that audio compression with the distortion and the reduced dynamics that it brings can be pleasing to the ear - making music sound more punchy and fat. So from a "what sounds best to me" perspective then any viewpoint can be valid. (Analog tape machines and certain circuit designs are highly prized for the sound they impose on the recorded music)

This divergence in goals is analogous to the difference between trying to follow a recipe exactly (reproduce what the cookbook calls for) or adding a bit of extra or different spices (not following the recipe rigorously). I want to hear what is on the recording. I appreciate that others do not necessarily seek that at all and it make for a discussion confusing.